N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
So now Dr. Dr. Dembski thinks that tenure decisions should be a matter of trading votes?
As others have noted, much irony and more than a little hypocrisy can be found in Dembski criticizing someone for not publishing in peer-reviewed journals and belittling him for publishing outside his area of expertise.
| Quote | | If anything, you seem to be getting considerable mileage now by playing the martyr. |
Well, IDists certainly know about that tactic.
| Quote | | If so, why shouldn’t Gonzalez’s PRIVILEGED PLANET count likewise in favor of his tenure? |
Here the good Dr. Dr. demonstrates even greater ignorance of the tenure process. Tenure committees go to great lengths to evaluate publication accomplishments in the humanities. Mostly, tenure committees rely on (1) evaluations by independent experts in the candidate's specialty, (2) any awards from professional organizations, (3) the existence of favorable professional reviews (i.e., in professional journals, not in the mass media), and, above all else, (4) the "venue", which is to say the status or reputation of the publisher. People in the humanities know this, so there is considerable competition to get published in the most prestigious venues. On a scale of 0-10, judging from what I see coming off its presses in recent years (e.g., Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution", O'Neill & Corsi's "Unfit for Command", Ann Coulter's "High Crimes & Misdemeanours"), I would guess that Regnery now rates at 0 (if not less), so no, Gonzalez's book wouldn't contribute much toward winning tenure.
| Quote | | Or do you know in advance (on what grounds? scientific? ideological? philosophical? …) that he’s full of it and you’re not. |
Well, that was part of Avalos' original point: he was able to tell in advance that "Privileged Planet" is hogwash, because he published an article that countered those sorts of arguments in 1998, whereas "Privileged Planet" was published in 2004. Sheesh.
|
